You're gonna need proof for that, staunch.
The rest of us can, with some basic level of objectivity, just look at the preponderance of the evidence and come to a conclusion. I believe that any reasonable person that looks into the publicly available evidence would come to the same conclusion.
On the other hand, if you're one of the rubes that bought the Seth Rich story from Assange you can be 100% sure that you're terrible at objective analysis.
And I do assert that anyone with an objective point of view would come to the same conclusion.
We should presume innocence until more qualified people beholded to a strict investigative and judicial process make their ruling, which will hopefully not be tainted by outside interests.
Innocent until proven guilty does not mean that we get to make premature assumptions and pass them off as fact because "this isn't a courtroom". It is not something just lawyers and judges are beholden to, it's something we as a society are beholden to. Everyone has to play along.
You can have your own thoughts, but you cannot just pass them off as objective fact without hard proof.
So I ask one more time, what evidence have you prepondered to ascertain Assange's guilty status? You're speaking in vague nothings instead of providing real data.
And Snowden has never mislead anyone about why he's in Russia. He's said that he would love to come home. And if U.S. whistleblower protections was stronger he could.
Snowden was openly revealing violations of the U.S. constitution.
Assange was covertly acting as an agent of a hostile foreign government with the intention of interfering in U.S. domestic politics.
There is no comparison between these two, at all.